6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger”

Stated compliance rates are at best defined as estimates, but guesses or even fantasies or delusions may be the better terms.

Same goes for the number of “gun owners” in America. My daughter, for one example, has a car and a gun. She owns neither. Her wife also has a gun that she in turn does not own. They both have pistols. I can guarantee you that if any sort of confiscation program were attempted, they’d both have military style semi automatic rifles too, which they wouldn’t own.

That’s two people who do not “own guns”, who could lay down a more-than-credible defense, or offense should it come to that process of a “defensive offensive” using interlocking fields of fire. They understand the basics of gun handling, ballistics, anatomy, the difference between concealment and cover, and simple tactics, and far from being intimidated by the thought of guns, they enjoy them. They will take firearms out in the field, and make up their own games and contests, and have a ball doing it. These are two sweet young ladies you fuck with at your deadly peril.

Did I mention that they are not gun owners?

There are several others I know who don’t “own guns” but have immediate access to them in case of need, and know how to use them. Get the point?

Now multiply that one example by ten and you’ll be close to some vague kind of understanding of the term for the number of “gun owners” in this part of the country.

I’ve heard several people scoff at the notion that our pathetic small arms would be any sort of deterrence against a modern police/military conspiracy against the People. That’s fine too. Keep scoffing. I also know several people with anti-material rifles.

Besides; if our small arms weren’t a deterrent against a modern military, they wouldn’t be trying to restrict or to ban them. QED.

Anyway, don’t forget that here in Idaho there’s a law which says we can build anything we want, up to a one inch bore (100 caliber) and no one has any say about it. The second amendment says that already, without the bore limit, but we’ve re-iterated it for extra effect. No one wants to “test the law” on that, but several will test the guns they made, all the same. See how this works?

Keep scoffing.

Large, high tech assets require large support, and they have a large footprint, and who it is that really controls them is an issue, because that will be a number of people who are not all of the same mindset.

Keep scoffing.

Also, God is on the side of liberty, which makes the authoritarians our bitches, should it come to that. Fish in a barrel. It also makes their heavy assets and high tech surveillance largely worthless against us, and dangerous to the very authoritarians who think they control them. All we have to do is stand up, while the authoritarians have to manage a multi trillion dollar network of fragile hardware, and direct and control hundreds of thousands of people of dubious commitment and split loyalty. It’s a one-sided proposition. Don’t forget it.

Seem to recall that back when dinosaurs ruled, and American history was actually taught in schools, we learned about some government or other that sent some enforcers to a couple of Massachusetts towns to try and take some HANSOBs’ (Heavily Armed Noncompliant SOBs Thanks to TZP) weapons from them by force. As I recall, that didn’t work out so well for the gov’ment folks.

Tell me more. I remember when I first moved to NH and marveled at the “welcome to Massachusetts” signs that promised a year in jail for owning a weapon. That’s when I first realized MA is not a place to live.

Comments are closed.

Amazon

Joe Huffman is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.